Fuegan Fox at Grey
Now I’m back 100% to using film, I can’t help wonder sometimes if I’ve lost the ability to shoot quickly. With the participants of my tour of Torres, I was aware that there were shots I was not getting.
Here is one example. We were at the edge of Lago Grey, shooting the surrounding, all-encompasing Paine massif one morning, and I really wasn’t sure if Velvia film was really going to cut it. The light was still relatively soft, but I kept thinking ‘digital would cut this no problem’ whereas I only ever shoot Velvia in the very early mornings and late evenings when the light is very, very soft. So I felt frustrated…. damn, being using a digital SLR for too long and I’ve started to rely on the histogram too much. Plus, the Mamiya 7 sucks at telephoto support and fast lenses. I felt weighed down, I felt I wasn’t going to get my shot
And then out of the blue a fuegan fox appeared on the scene and litterally walked in from the right and departed from the left of my scene. My temptation was to have a telephoto there and then to get in close to the fox, but I’m so glad I was constrained. As much as the fox is tiny, the resulting photo I feel, works well. The mountains are commanding, they are certainly a major point of interest, and perhaps without the fox, the landscape image wasn’t really strong enough. Putting the fox in there, as small as he is, doesn’t demand too much attention – there’s no conflict between the fox and the mountains for attention. The fox is complimentary to the mountains by adding some foreground interest at the right proportions and from the foxes point of view, it’s good to have a background that can be used to convey a sense of scale. Sometimes, isolation, reducing down a photo to the most interesting element (fox) is too drastic. Sometimes you need to step back and let the entire landscape in. For that reason, I’m glad I was stuck with my Mamiya 7. I had to make use of what I had, and hopefully use it well.
I like it. The fox adds to the photo. Without it this is just another scenic. The fox adds to the grandeur of the mountains. Of course, that is just one persons opinion but I think it works and it makes for a great shot.
Yeah, I agree that the camera doesn’t matter but you kind of make me want to go back to film.
Comment by gc — 26 April, 2009 @ 12:38 am
So Bruce, having picked your brains a lot about film recently, this post raises a question in me.
If something like this happened in front of me (fox walking across the shot), I would start firing off the DSLR like a machine gun, trying different compositions and getting the fox in different positions as he moved. I often find with moving subjects that you never know what your strongest photo will be until you review them all.
What do you do here with film? Do you fire off the whole roll? Do you wait and watch as he walks and hope you can recognise the strongest composition, and risk the chance he turns and runs off or someone walks into the frame?
Comment by Niall Connaughton — 29 April, 2009 @ 10:39 pm
Hi Niall,
I guess I’m intrigued by your question, because it suggests that you think that film is not as quick or immediate as digital is. This is really down to the individual.
If the truth be told, digital shooters should be as considered with their photography as film shooters tend to be.
In terms of what I did for this shot, the issues I had were that my camera system is not immediate to use compared to an SLR system: no zooms, all fixed focal length lenses, and no decent telephoto lenses – best one is equiv to 75mm… not that powerful.
As I said in my post, because of these limitations, I was constrained. I knew changing lens was going to take too long, so I decided to make the shot about the whole landscape. Put the fox in it to compliment it, but the scene is really about scale. The mountains were used to frame the shot, because the fox was so small. So I just composed it for the mountains and watched as the fox worked his way across the scene.
I did move on a few times, anticipating that the fox would continue to walk to the left of the scene which is what he did. I concentrated my efforts on framing the mountains and trying to get the fox in the right ’space’ in the foreground. Too much to the left and that would have been wrong, too much to the right, and it would have been unbalanced too. ‘Sort of’ in the middle felt right.
And then I cropped it. 6×7 didn’t work for the entire scene, so I cut the foreground.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 29 April, 2009 @ 11:26 pm
Sorry, I guess I was unclear. I wasn’t referring to the speed of the camera, simply the limitation of only having a certain number of shots left on the roll of film, and the different mentality of shooting film where you have a limited amount of film and it costs more to develop. That and the fact that each photo you take will create something physical in your hand.
These factors seem to be somewhat in opposition to the digital world where you can fire like a machine gun and then pick the one that came out best later, delete the rest and it’s done. I guess my attitude in the past with unpredictable subjects (like animals) has been to shoot a lot because you never know when you might catch it in the middle of something interesting – water flying as it takes a drink, that sort of thing.
But it feels less artistic – you’re not necessarily trying to create a shot, you’re just grabbing everything you can. So I was just curious about how you approach a situation like this – how many photos did you end up taking? With a DSLR I’m sure I would have taken between 20-30 photos at least.
I’m not saying one is right, I’m just curious how the approach is different with film and how it works for you.
To put it another way, if an Andea puma walked across your path in the middle of the day (instead of at midnight when we saw it during the workshop I was on), would you snap away like a paparazzo who’s just caught Britney Spears checking her mail in a clown costume? Or would you have a more considered approach?
Comment by Niall Connaughton — 30 April, 2009 @ 9:16 am
Hi Niall,
You’ve just touched on something here.
I’ll give you a concise reply first : I always use a considered approach, regardless whether I use film or digital.
Because I came from a film background, and spent a few years improving my photography to the point that it was not a case of ‘getting lucky’ anymore. I know that good photographs happen because I was thinking about what is outside the frame as well as what is inside the frame.
Your description of a digital shooter being much more casual, or dare I say it – wreckless, may apply to a lot of digital ’snappers’. I’m sure there are people out there who have never been considered in their approach, regardless of whether it was film or digital. But digital has enabled them to fire off more images without it hurting the bank balance. But I also think that most digital shooters who produce good images are very considered with their approach.
To get back to me. That particular circumstance with the fox at lago Grey…. I was indeed stressed. I think I ran out of film half way through. But during my time shooting, I was always thinking about composition, composition, composition. Like I said in my original post, if I’d had more lenses available to me, I probably would have strayed into shooting the fox up close, and I’m glad I didn’t.
I often like to think that less is more. Shooting with primes makes me hunt a location, rather than stay routed to the spot zooming in and out which is in my opinion lazy and tends to produce unimaginative photographs. Likewise, not having every single focal length at my disposal makes me have to think more about a scene and try to get the best out of it with what I have.
But the bottom line is, I do shoot a lot of film and move quite quickly. I feel this is down to a technique I’ve built up over the years and also because I feel I know what I want and know how to get it. I think my shooting hasn’t changed much between film and digital and would guess that I tend to shoot a little bit more on digital than film. But also tend to throw away a bit more on digital too.
I know when a picture sucks and when it’s not going to be worth keeping. Often at the time of exposure. So I don’t rattle off lots of images in either format. I just take what I feel at the time will work and has a strong composition.
I knew that fox was working his way across my field of view. I just had to keep repositioning myself (running to the left) and get the camera ready for him coming into frame again. I would have done this with digital too.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 1 May, 2009 @ 8:26 am
Thanks Bruce, I was basically wondering if it was one of say two or three photos you took or if you too get excited when something like this happens. I generally try to be slow and considered but when something like this happens I think I get worried about missing something and feel like I should be shooting constantly. But as you say, if you know a photo isn’t good, no point in pressing the shutter.
Comment by Niall Connaughton — 1 May, 2009 @ 9:22 am
Hi Niall,
Yes I get excited. I think in this circumstance, I did feel constrained and frustrated. I was sure that the others with their digital cameras and very long lenses would be able to get something and I would be left with nothing. I think the lens i had on was just the standard lens and knew that even the telephoto I had was of no use. So I had to be a bit more inventive and start thinking about putting the fox in context to the mountains. Once I’d settled on this idea (I had no other option) I remained focussed.
When I say considered. I was freaking out to be honest, but just blindly firing off lots of frames is of no use. The adrenalin was pumping and I was one of the few in the group who was constantly on the move – matching the fox as he walked up the river. Each time, I placed my camera ahead of him. Waiting for him to come into shot. Because the camera is basic, I had just set everything up. It was pre-focused, the meter readings were on manual (the light isn’t changing, so why change meter reading?) so I just needed to re-compose each time I moved.
Certainly, when I saw the other participants images, they had shots ranging from really up close to far away. But, you only really need one really good shot, and although it’s easy to always feel there was more to get, if you get a good shot like the one associated to this post, you just have to be happy. If I’d shot more images, I think things would have been less focused (less impact). Better to have one good shot than a dozen average ones.
I took about two rolls of shots of this scene – that’s 20 images. Most lack impact because I was still figuring out how to make the best of my limitations with what was being presented to me. Out of that 20, there are perhaps 3 images that are worthy of publication, and this is my favourite one. The composition was just more pleasing than the rest when compared together.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 1 May, 2009 @ 9:36 am